The Two-State Final Solution

In his article listed below Elliot Abrams lucidly explains why the two-state-solution is, at best, woefully misguided or, at worst, lethally dangerous nonsense.

Before anything in the way of so-called solutions should be discussed we need to insist that the Arab Palestinians present a case that substantiates their claim to self-determination in a sovereign state. Decades of shouting that they want one is an insufficient reason to grant them one particularly in a land they never owned and over which they never ruled.

Let us start by asking them the reason for their unending hostility towards the Jewish people many centuries before Israel was reconstituted in 1948. Where are the political and legal documents that prove their claims? Is there any archaeological evidence? Are there any public buildings that housed their government? If so, when were they destroyed and by whom?

The international community should stop infantilizing these people by treating their claims as if they are legitimate. Rewarding them by granting them something to which they are not entitled because of constant terrorist attacks and blood-curdling threats sets a dreadful example of weakness and demonstrates a lack of moral clarity which will cost more blood and treasure. One enormous example of such weakness was when Yasser Arafat, the self-appointed leader of the P.L.O. and a man with a penchant for European rent-boys, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 for agreeing to stop something which he should never have started in the first place.

Apart from the fact that the Arab Palestinians have no case and their claims to self-determination in a land that never belonged to them are fraudulent, the two-state-solution is exposed as being completely unviable the minute its proponents start talking about that state being demilitarized with no standing army!

If the intentions of the Arab Palestinians are benign why deny them an army? Is this denial supposed to make the Israelis feel more secure? Of what do they have to be fearful? Now, if you don’t know the answer to that then you have used the last 76 years as an opportunity catch up on some sleep and obviously know nothing about the genocidal attack of October 7th.

It is obscene to suggest that Israelis should live next to these monsters, even under different leadership, and in the land where King David ruled over 3,000 years ago.

The vaunted two-state-solution is no solution at all. The Arab Palestinians do not want a state of their own. What they want is the means to destroy the Jewish state. Having a state of their own adjacent to Israel is the easiest and surest way for them to accomplish that goal with the continued help of their Iranian masters.

Islamic supremacists know exactly what they want and they are prepared to empty the future for any nation or group that stands in their way which is why the Iran Nuclear Deal concocted by Barack Obama and currently being resurrected by Joe Biden is the very worst policy idea the Democrats have yet conceived. It assures Iran will be a nuclear power within about 5 years or less. How will the possession of apocalyptic weapons curtail the atrociously bad behavior of the Iranian ayatollahs?!! Surely nobody expects their behavior would improve.

I fear that any two-state-solution especially with the ayatollahs still in control of Iran will devolve into a one-state-solution and eventually the Final Solution giving Adolf Hitler a posthumous victory in his eternal quest of annihilating the Jewish people.

The Two-State Delusion

The Biden administration is leading a push to recognize a Palestinian state that will be a danger to the security of Israel

By: Elliott Abrams, The Tablet, February 01, 2024

Everyone knows what to do about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Arrange the “two-state solution.” That has been a commonplace for decades, going back to the Oslo Accords, all the international conferences, the “Roadmap,” and the efforts by a series of American presidents and their staffs of ardent peace processors.

In the West, the call for a “two-state solution” is mostly a magical incantation these days. Diplomats and politicians want the Gaza war to stop. They want a way out that seems fair and just to voters and makes for good speeches. But they are not even beginning to grapple with the issues that negotiating a “two-state solution” raises, and they are not seriously asking what kind of state “Palestine” would be. Instead they simply imagine a peaceful, well-ordered place called “Palestine” and assure everyone that it is just around the corner. By doing so they avoid asking the most important question: Would not an autocratic, revanchist Palestinian state be a threat to peace?

No matter: The belief in the “two-state solution” is as fervent today as ever. The German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said it’s the “only solution” and Britain’s defense minister chimed in that “I don’t think we get to a solution unless we have a two-state solution.” Not to be outdone, U.N. Secretary General Guterres said, “The refusal to accept the two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians, and the denial of the right to statehood for the Palestinian people, are unacceptable.” The EU’s Foreign Minister Josep Borrell said recently, “I don’t think we should talk about the Middle East peace process anymore. We should start talking specifically about the two-state-solution implementation process.” What if Israel does not agree, and views a Palestinian state as an unacceptable security threat? Borrell’s answer was that “One thing is clear—Israel cannot have the veto right to the self-determination of the Palestinian people. The United Nations recognizes and has recognized many times the self-determination right of the Palestinian people. Nobody can veto it.”

In the United States, 49 Senate Democrats (out of 51) just joined to support a resolution that, according to Sen. Brian Schatz, is “a message to the world that the only path forward is a two-state solution.” Biden administration officials have been a bit more circumspect in public. At the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos in January, Secretary of State Blinken told his interviewer, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, that regional integration “has to include a pathway to a Palestinian state.” National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan called for “a two-state solution with Israel’s security guaranteed.” And President Biden meandered around an important security point: “there are a number of types of two-state solutions. There’s a number of countries that are members of the U.N. that … don’t have their own military; a number of states that have limitations, and so I think there’s ways in which this can work.”

The Biden administration, then, joins all enlightened opinion in saying there must be a Palestinian state, but adds that it must not have an army. No other precondition seems to exist for the creation of that state once the Palestinian Authority has been “revamped” or “revitalized” so that it becomes “effective.” And most recently, Blinken has asked his staff for policy options that include formal recognition of a Palestinian state as soon as the war in Gaza ends. This would be a massive change in U.S. policy, which for decades has insisted that a Palestinian state can only emerge from direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. But the pressure is growing, it seems, to skip niceties like negotiations and move quickly to implement the “two-state solution.”

There are three things wrong with this picture. First, none of the current proposals even acknowledges, much less overcomes, the obstacles that have always prevented the “two-state solution.” Second, the “effective governance” reforms fall very far short of creating a decent state in which Palestinians can live freely. And most important, any imaginable Palestinian state will be a dangerous threat to Israel.

Start with the issues—beyond violence and terror—that negotiations to create a Palestinian state must resolve and are being ignored. Take borders, for instance: Where are they? In the round of negotiations in 2008, after the 2007 Annapolis Conference, Palestinian representatives demanded that Israel get out of the West Bank towns of Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim—populations 20,000 and 38,000, respectively. Are those still Palestinian demands? How many of the Israelis living in the West Bank must leave? Must the new state of Palestine must be judenrein?

But those are the simpler border issues; the tough one is Jerusalem. Will East Jerusalem be the capital of a Palestinian state? If so, what does that mean? The old Arab Quarter only, or the Christian and Armenian quarters too? Do their residents have any say in this? Is it actually being proposed that the Western Wall would be the Israeli border, and if you stand there and look up you are looking at another country? Or that David’s Citadel and the Tower of David would be in Palestine? A look at the map of Jerusalem shows how impractical is the division of Jerusalem again if the city is to thrive, but what about politics? Which Israeli politicians of the left or center are going to be in favor of dividing Jerusalem again, going back to the pre-1967 days—and doing it in the aftermath of the Hamas massacres of Oct. 7?

The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 is sometimes suggested as the basis for negotiations, but it demands “Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.” More border troubles! Especially since the U.S. has recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which includes areas claimed by the Lebanese.

And what about the issue of “refugees?” UNRWA, the U.N.’s discredited but powerful Palestinian refugee agency, says there are 5.9 million “Palestinian refugees,” using its definition that includes generation after generation no matter what citizenship they have. Will there be a “right of return?” In the negotiations in 2008, the private Palestinian demand was much smaller—in the range of 10,000 or 15,000. But Israeli negotiators rejected those numbers, taking a position of principle against the “right of return” but also noting the impossible problem of deciding who would qualify for it. Will Palestinian politicians agree to abandon it once and for all? If not, how will negotiations succeed?

Second, suppose negotiations do succeed and the borders of a Palestinian state are drawn. Does anyone care what is going on inside those borders? In January Secretary Blinken said, “It’s I think very important for the Palestinian people that they have governance that can be effective. …” They need a Palestinian Authority, he said, that can “actually deliver what the Palestinian people want and need. …”

There are some words missing in all the calls for a Palestinian state—words like democracy, human rights, and liberty.

Keep reading…

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

• $25.00 here
• $50.00 here
• $75.00 here
• $100.00 here
• $250.00 here

5 2 votes

Article Rating

6 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

danknight

3 months ago

Bottom line … no one can live next to the followers of pedophile profit calling for the extermination of everyone who disagrees …

Under no foreseeable circumstances can any Fakestinian “state” operate in peace anywhere within striking distance of Israel.

How to solve it? … You can’t. What can be done is to allow the Israeli’s to do what they have to do.

… It would help to remove all Fakestinians from Gaza and the West Bank and cede all these lands to Israel and Israel alone. …

… But that’s politically impossible right now.

G-d help us all.

6

Staff Sgt

3 months ago

Palestinian, Muslims and all terrorist organizations affiliated want to destroy the Jews and Israel and they will not stop until it happens. Israel might have to go to WAR with these evil doers or at least send a clear HELLFIRE message but even that won’t stop them coming. There has to be a WAR where they will parish but I think G_D has a different plan!

6

Theo Prinse

3 months ago

François Genoud (26 October 1915 – 30 May 1996) was a noted Swiss financier and a principal benefactor of the Nazi diaspora through the ODESSA network and a supporter of Middle Eastern militant groups during the post-World War II 20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Genoud

0

Sir Peter

3 months ago

To understand the futility of the two state ‘solution’ read “1948: The History of the First Arab Israeli War”. Prof Benny Morris. Harvard University Press 2008

4

Stephen Honig

3 months ago

Palistine is a State and Israel is a country.

2

D

Hardrock

3 months ago

Just wait a little bit. Once Iran has Nuclear capability they will fire all tubes at Israel. With the Peststinians being so close. They will get wiped out by Iran. Not that Iran cares anything about the Peststinians. But the problem will be solved by the Hatred of Iran for the Jews. Before that happens the Israelis might want to do a Pre-emptive Strike. Get rid of Iran and their Peststinian attack dogs first.

1